Bell v. Mason
This text of Bell v. Mason (Bell v. Mason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 RAYMOND LAMONT BELL, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01592-JCC-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER SUBSTITUTING 12 RESPONDENT AND FOR JEFFEREY PERKINS, SERVICE AND ANSWER, § 2254 13 PETITION Respondent. 14
15 This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is currently 16 incarcerated at the Washington Corrections Center (“WCC”) and is subject to the Court’s 17 Prisoner E-Filing Initiative pursuant to General Order 06-16. The Court, having reviewed 18 Petitioner’s federal habeas Petition, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows: 19 (1) Substitution of Respondent 20 The proper respondent to a habeas petition is the “person who has custody over [the 21 petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243; Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th 22 Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitioner named the Jeffery 23 Perkins—the Superintendent of Coyote Ridge Correctional Complex (“CRCC”)—as Respondent 24 in this action. Dkt. 1. Shortly after he initiated this action, Petitioner was transferred from CRCC 1 to WCC. See Dkt. 4. The Superintendent of WCC is Dean Mason. The Clerk of Court is 2 therefore DIRECTED to SUBSTITUTE Dean Mason as the Respondent in this action and to 3 UPDATE the case title accordingly. 4 (2) Service
5 The Clerk shall arrange for service, by e-mail upon Respondent and upon the Attorney 6 General of the State of Washington, of copies of: the Petition, any other documents filed in 7 support of the Petition, and this Order. The Clerk shall also direct a copy of this Order and of the 8 Court’s pro se instruction sheet to Petitioner. 9 (3) Answer 10 Within forty-five (45) days after such service, Respondent(s) shall file and serve an 11 answer in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States 12 District Courts. As part of such answer, Respondent(s) shall state whether Petitioner has 13 exhausted available state remedies and whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary. 14 Respondent(s) shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without first showing
15 cause as to why an answer is inadequate. Respondent(s) shall file the answer with the Clerk of 16 the Court and serve a copy of the answer on Petitioner. 17 The answer will be treated in accordance with LCR 7. Accordingly, on the face of the 18 answer, Respondent(s) shall note it for consideration no earlier than 28 days after filing. 19 Petitioner may file and serve a response not later than 21 days after the filing date of the answer, 20 and Respondent(s) may file and serve a reply not later than 28 days after the filing date of the 21 answer. 22 (4) Filing by Parties, Generally 23 All attorneys admitted to practice before this Court are required to file documents
24 electronically via the Court’s CM/ECF system. Petitioner shall file all documents electronically. 1 All filings must indicate in the upper right-hand corner the name of the United States Magistrate 2 Judge to whom the document is directed. 3 Any document filed with the Court must be accompanied by proof that it has been served 4 upon all parties that have entered a notice of appearance in the underlying matter. Petitioner shall
5 indicate the date the document is submitted for e-filing as the date of service. 6 (5) Motions 7 Any request for court action shall be set forth in a motion, properly filed and served. 8 Pursuant to LCR 7(b), any argument being offered in support of a motion shall be submitted as a 9 part of the motion itself and not in a separate document. The motion shall include in its caption 10 (immediately below the title of the motion) a designation of the date the motion is to be noted for 11 consideration on the Court’s motion calendar. 12 (6) Direct Communications with District Judge or Magistrate Judge 13 No direct communication is to take place with the District Judge or Magistrate Judge with 14 regard to this case. All relevant information and papers are to be directed to the Clerk.
15 Dated this 4th day of October, 2024. 16 A 17 18 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bell v. Mason, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-mason-wawd-2024.